The Sun. — London, England, 1818-04-11 00:00:00

J OOP S S Ogp_ l ie , CIW to s j t g 10 P u g ,. r b , toed ,eve n iti :tint t he t froo a 0 ti "r ion at try ifs a ° f 0 be f i t 0 c e to its the. °° .0 fore [ie vbic h Ole °O O obi 1 , .4 t ej ni el pC tiOl .ni t , be 3 ;tIY v •cll 4 sq l a p pl; YQ "te . I't efa3e till I see yen in Glasgow, when I shall be able to t Zwutliustliow, I.4_'!ll9Pleate with you. Sir Alexander Cochrane is I , i t ot .u , s t t acce otherwise I should hare written to thi3 ..?re heady.partic Have the goodness not . o y n o wn 3 tion matter till twbole is arranged. I think ,. ci ., u ts sh_o..t r , i s d t l i,r Lord Douglas's offer. I beg my co:opium!. , m , i°,•c2, and am &c u •• ' tie begged ' lea v e ' • , t he IL_ was, --4,, use to two passages in the letter. One f‘ i 'lna authorised by Lord Don L das," e‘c Th e .., ' lother, which was 'fear the contittsion, '' I thmii ~,," should accept —not my o ff er, but Lnrd Dottg -''s ffer." T 1 -de letter also contained the names • o f j 1 bo th th e candidates. In short, it was perfect eferx,Plicit• li e must her e sa y , t h at h e cou ld not c -11111 from thinking that Ferguson must have re at ill ed some authority in a circuitous Way; thoug h .. bi til e same time he wished not to say one syll tr e t o throw the slightest imputation on the woard Lord Don i 13t.t . at the same time, he, h Must o bserve; g i th at the terms of the Noble Lord's L ter . to him were so very aeneral, that he might c he s",e mistaken as to their import. Howe' . r , . 'nough t it Iv r i tte,, . necessary to say, th a IVIr. Dykes had p e .. - a letter to say that he did not believ , e ie tlz ~r,-gussou wrote the letter in que , tion, or ma , ir p, ° POSEll in i t '4ue„, , - •,, by the authority of Lord Douglas. "dole * at •• . . • , whether or not any ta c t _ pout is.u t ‘s a . by 1 , 1 atith orif y had been given to Mr. Fergusson Cu Lot D on:!las. It would certainly be vet y • 11 41 tYl r' that a person it) Mr. Fcrgn„„so„,3 sitlita 4er;)t,""ht take upon himself - to write such a .ct ,uhlieee ; .: ° 'lt any authority. Either it must be . tar . - ' 4 ct:,, 111 " Le had some authority, direct or m( 1 1.- 11 4 ( 14: 4 h aft been guilty of such a tissue of a)- . atilt, ~ as to Write such a letter - without any ttli4P,itY• The difficulty was, how the House eeed.:` p ro ceed in the ease - Two modes of pro m'lV . 1 b 4 tl been suggested to him ; either to go t t r p, P , er gd s son to beinou , lit to the bar of the t f a- ° slate What authority lie acted, ~ ~,. 0 , on . or to Ile 'e whole case to a Committee of Prkileges ; tho s w" Perfectly indifferent as to which o tiouettw° courses was adopted. His inten ,t° th e t o move that Fergusson be brought "e l e r" . of the House. Another mode in t! el , "ul ben suggested—namely, to order Atli,,, we'll: Jou to be instituted 6y the Lon aitist that individual ; but to tha ( Ladi° flt . ) %visi t to resort, although he di ta t ' i tecl ille it front ativ notion that rh . F . Learned offp t ' vt 'abl not exert - all his skill in bit,igin the g other poi-t"er In punishment. There was only " lii.' t 4 ) which it was necessary for him to ad vert. t:141. rhed‘iV" aWnte that there not any precede nt ~i a r. k it, af ely i ll Point. Th ere was one Act I f ( I lia. t,4,ll`lit indeecr which served to throw some emu nic:itt,ll the wHy— namely, the Act of I b tiv - e-alled Atr. Curwen's.Act. After an atten- t e °e 's' I .. x t lie could not find that I t4'l:ettliellr‘ii";; an p f r:! i s t e a e t ti r :i c o - ti in such a case,unl l e i s e s cti ttel v4 s an expre: s contract for treating. }" 41•Z iell by mo v i ng , '' that Thomss Fergussou 21, t , t reel i o attend t hi s H ouse on T ues d ay , the Nir Itli' nionfli.". I , llv idet i I'NNe. sitegested, that the letter on th, z t) it'', motio n 'was founded ought, acc. theortl- Cler}:.ille fo rms of t h e House, to be read h) , Lu td A ~ 19t th t— t h vv ilitiAthmlr TON arced t o o ; the 14,:ttr - this, and said, he t t , i 'lle c. l h , t44 9‘tof the Houiee• should be del% leted ti' Ili l e .. t was then delivered to the Cler i k is , t a v n a t s l -4111 -t'ati diOlid to the House. When this Ai r ur "ti. '• °LIND s s aid, he thought that after the tl,e ker'cnidettee 4 S i I) had taken place between Notlt)ble Lord opposite ‘%'e and Lord Douglas,. the i r 11- e . I -4d !night have spared his mr ) o_ti. the I, q) .' COuid not satisfy t h e Noble Leto ( 11 tl e J l e t e t, h e ~,,„s sure l ie 0•0111(1 be able to sa tisf y t(') t,i,,,t(1):8(........f„., 1,,,. .was desired h, is yLc)rtl t 0 Douglas i:i,ikc %ever did re f ? the House,. upon honour, that he ‘11,,,Y such g i ve any order to any p er son . 'Alio, P r omis e as was mentioned in the . letter il ited: " 54 been read to the House. He ‘Niastdleie ‘l743 s t°o , by that Noble Lord to state, 111 , 4 ar e .. ct the House was too generous to doubt a .tst 1 f t 4 e tilit'italified and express denial, and too e ll . 1 'Orent"aio any unfoun ded suspicion. lie t s l t ) at r e e . ehttht)-4ceived, that after having made this House c ' 1 111"Y t he desir e of Lord Douglas, %,.th ta,litj'a,ll7t agree to the motion now before it % 1 the t Qat N PI L Yi"g a distrust in the word of ofhonm'r Sit,,l“';'"lernan. He could not sit down without b.. 'er e t rug 'the Noble• Lot el , whose motion was e n Ivh ol 'e 4 'lse, of all old saving—'' that a t i na m tt ane lve ,s in a glass house should not throw i n ti f il t p l if i r i i tiai ute'ioic,.eis when e,l the Noble Lo rd comp lained gainst him, Ire hi of II() 4 rdl ett and assisted by letters from a . per soncie mself'was eg o fat li .ll rY .rank for they were signed by I 41 °i I the Noble Lord. He would oppose the uh, 11 4 e " LItY-... IIrvNTIE.--This was a case of direct brii 'eti 11.4105 t serious invasion on the privileges o : 44 Z ise • After the letter which had been read i t -ci thrh. 1-4)"ible to deny that the offence had been b ...ht eo i , .I. oll gla s b y some pne. That it was by . Lord er ‘" itn " ;" t oan could for a moment suppose, al 1 I llit ee - t (11.tite denial which that Nobleman bad --ti t tl t- t° be given on• his part to the eharge. e — r. Itts Bo t at the offence had been committed by F t th e /pi the letter indisputably proved ; and ye hyi n °n• Gehtleman (Mr. AV. Dinulas) sat down, h, that r t ' ci t , bat lie would oppose the !notion, and — ustb " impossible but that every Gentleman glas 0 e 3atiSfied—and why ?—Because Lord Don thoeitellied that he had given Fergusson any ao- • tlenia?' After all, this was no more than t he FPe% ( 4 the person accused—mid, because t he °llhrl„accused denied the charge, therefore the .1. ' 4 00 - ' 4 of England were to rest satisfied, thoug h Ptiil' 3es sion of an indisputable proof that their l etai n e °, 8 of been infringed, _lie would not !v het; f i fe Rouse by quoting precedents. In 1779, 'ilezat_cottiplaint of this kind was made against ~ u " of Chatuks, the question was referred NE iL , ti °lntnittee of Privileges. 'flue s a m e thing et et °,. n e in the case of Lord Oxford. If the l 'tat an ' case was passed over, it would be the first ttr )o -t e or such a neglect of what was due to the 10 a4 4 of the House. The course for the House qki,tenPt was eithe r to refer the case to a C . O . M . - ohi e .. of Privileges to take evidence, or if it na tty " " i b thotight more convenient, to order the at e Li 4 once to the bar of the House. But the Litt, ;,. ‘l°lll ll be totally. forgetful of its own dig tat,L._ .1 It did not examine into this Case, and iiir_lt proSeCUtion against the guilty person. LOAD AI.)VOCATR of SCOTLAND beggLd the " House to observe that the notice Was fora inotiOn " regarding the interference of a Peer of the Realm in the electiOn of a Member of Parlia !neut." uric begped to ask whether the motion of the Notde Lord was conformable to this no tice ? In opposition to the statement in the let ter which had been read, the House had the aver ment of Lord Douglas, that the assertion in that letter, that it was written by his authority, was utterly unfounded. There was also the assertion of the individual to whoM the letter was addressed, that he did not believe the assertions contained in it to he true. lie would therefore pot it to the House, whether there was any grounds for an in quiry as to the conduct of Lord Douglas. The question as to Fergusson was quite different.--- The motion was, that Fergusson should be ordered to attend at the liar of this House. He supposed that when the Noble Lord made this motion, he had in contemplation the questions which he would put to Fergus son ; and he would submit whether Fergwson could be obliged to answer any question which would tend to criminate himself. It the Noble Lord had thought proper to adopt the course of moving for a prosecution, he c.nild only say that nothiug should have been wanting on his part to conduct that prosecution with all the ability he was master of. The Noble Lord talked a great deal of the agents and partisans of Government, used to remove him from the representation of the county alluded- to. Ile could assure the House, for his own'part„ that he had no means of using any influence on any person in that county. If he had any means of such influence, it might be another question how he would use them. For this reason, that, from his strong personal attachment to the lion. Admiral, who was One of the Candi dates, he would be happy byoany means to contri bute to his success. Bit the Noble Lord talked of the influence of the Peerage, and how it had been directed against him. Would the Noble Lord deny that the Noble Duke, his father, on a former occasion, when the . eleet ion of the county was contested, had used, his influence to create 30 new voters ? He would not have referred to this, had it not been for what the Noble Lord ad said about the independence of the electors for that county. As to the present question, whatever the House might think proper to do with Fergnsson was a very different thing from any thing with relation to Lord Dnnglas. He admitted that Fergtisson should be proceeded against, if he was guilty of improper interference to influence the votes of electors. Mr. BROUGHAM said, that among the old say ings from which the Hon:„Gentleman (Mr. W. Dundas) had made his selection, there was one which was peculiarly applicable to the speech of the Learned Gentleman who just now sat down, namely, that there is no new thing under - the sun; for the Honse• had heard from that Honourable and Learned Gentleman such a code of 'the Privi- legcs of the House as was new in every chapter and line. The Honourable and Learned Gentle man► had told the House that they could not call Ferguson to the Bar, because the notice of his Noble Friend related to a ),reach of privilege by a Peer. But his Noble Friend, who knew what were the Privileges of tlie Houle, made an apo logy when . he gave notice of his motion, for no such notice was necessary. By the usage of Par liament such a motion as . the present might be made without any ?twice at all ; for it was only necessary for any Member to walk up to the Clet k with such a letter as that this night produced, and when it bad been read, forthwith to move that the person who wrote it he brought to the bar of the House. Such a motion would take precedence of all other motions, whether they stood in the no tice-book, - or any where else. Then as .to what the Noble Lord said, of having in contemplation what questions would be asked when the individual was brought to the bar, he shrewdly suspected that his Noble Friend - had turned over in his mind the questions which he would ask, and that the first of those questions would be," Are you the author of this letter I.'" if the person at the bar refused to answer this question, the Serjeant at Arms would be ordered immediately to commit him to custody. If the Learned Lord Advocate would take the rouble to ask• any one Member accustomed to questions of privilege_ (for of these the Learned Lord knew nothing), he would find that this was the mode of proceeding, and that it Wiruld be no protection to an individual in such a situation to say, " tshall not answer the question, because my answer may be used to criminate-myself," be cause he was perfectly sate from. any use being made in a Court of Justice .of any answers made by him to questions put by this House. Tl i c 1-louse would disgrace, and degrade, and vilify it self, if it did not protect•its privileges in - the pre sent instance. The motion w►►s confined-to Fee- gusson, and nothing was said in it about Lord Douglas. But he must say, that even if the mo tion had been against Lord Douglas, the House ought not to be prevented from ewertaining it, from any thing which had passed to-night. It he were a friend of Lord Douglas, he would say that, for his sake, the present case should be thorough ly sifted ; for it it vvas allowed to rest as it now stood, great suspicion %vould rest upon the way in Which Lord Douglas was implicated. The Lo.rd Advocate and Mr. Brougham nnutu• ally explained. Mr. BATHURST said, that the questiori before the House was on the conduct of an individual of the name of Fergusson, who had certainly been guilty of a very _great breach of privilege; but then the House had to consider how to dispose of the motion now before it. The Most usual course was to refer such a case to a CoMmittee of Privileges, rather than call the individual, in the first instance, to the Bar of the House.—Aikother course was that which had been followed in the Bishop of Worcester's case in 1704, in which a prosecution was ordered. But in tl►e present case, he thought the most advisable course would. be, to refer the matter to a Con►mittee of Privi- eges ; and therelorehe submitted to the Noble LOrd whether it would not be better to do so. It the Noble Lord did not, he himself tvould move that it should be so referred. Lord A. HAMILTON said, he had no objection o the case being referred to a Committee of Privileges. Mr. BATHURST wished the Noble Lord to with- ;lraw his motion. This was declined, and then Mr. 13A;Tilt1tt - sT Moved as an amemhneut, that the question shopld be refwed to a Committee of nivileges. ' . . Lord A. HAM ILTON said he hoped he had not acted uncandidly, in the way in which he had brought forward this question. He certainly felt very. great satisfaction that the House had not acted in the summary way which the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr Dundas) advised, who wished the whole to be dismissed ou tbe denial of Lotd Douglas. As to What had been alluded to 're specting the Elections for the County which he now represented, the transaction mentioned took place above thirty years ago, and when it took place, might h ave b een b r o ug h t b e f ore Pa r liaMent. The original question was then put anti nega tived, without a diyision, after which the aniend. ments - were agreed to, and an instruction waS J;iven to the Committee to sit and proceed on the said COM pl din I to-morrow. After a few words from Lord A. HAMILTON and Mr. BATH U BST, his Lortkhip's name was added to the Committee. CURRENCY OF THE COUNTRY. Mr. TIERNEY gave notice, that on Friday next he should niove, that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the Circulation of the Country, both in Paper and in Coin. Mr: TIERNEY moved for an Account of the Total Weekly Amount of Bank Notes and Bank Post Bills from the :id of March to the 7th of April, and of those outstanding on the Ilth of April, distinguishing the amount of tha Bank Post Bills and Notes, and stating that of the whole.—Agreed to. Mr. TIERNEY then morel for an Account, spewing the Monies laid out for the purchase. of Stock by the Commis sioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in each month, from the sth of October, 1817, to the sth of January, 1818, and explaining the cause of any diminution or in crease of the money laid out in the course of each of the said months. Agreed to, after a few observations (which were inaudible in the Gallery) from the Chancellor of the Exche quer. JERSEY. Mr. BENNET inquired, whether any steps had been taken by Government in consequence of the Report of a Commis sion appointed to inquire into the state of the Civil Laws in the Island of Jersey ? The ATTORNI , ,i-GENERAL was understood to answer, bat some alterations in the state of those laws were in con etoplation, but bad not yet been effected. ORDNANCE ESTIMATES. The House having resolved itself into a Com mittee of Supply, Mr. WARD stated, that in proposing the Ord nance Estimates for the year, he shoal() have no occasion to enter into any long details and expla nations. There was hardly any difference between those Estimates and those of ISI7, except in one point. By a new regulation, that part of the Ordnance that belonged to the Navy, and which had hitherto been charged on the Army Esti mates, was now thrown upon those of the Adtni ralty, and would in future be paid by its proper department. All the Military Boards were the . same as - last year. But owing to the exert ions of the Master-General,. the Extraordinaries had been considerably reduced, They now amounted to only 47,0001. more than in 1748, notwithstand ing the great'airgrnetitation which had taken place in the extent of the service and the value of articles since that period. This could not have heen.dime if the Master-General had not acted on the principle of keeping down the expenditure every possible way. lie then moved, that a sum not exceeding 596,4601. is: 01-d. be granted for the Ordnance Service of Great Britain in 1818, exclusive of the vote of credit of . 150,0001. al ready granted by the House. _ _ Mr.I3I.:NNET called ►l►e attention of the lion. Gentleman to the situation olCantoin Humphreys and other Officers of the Corps of Artillery Drivers, who had been reduced and put upots half-pay, although it had been proposed and sanctioned by the House that they should retire on full pay. It was hard that after 22 years' service they should meet with such treatment, whilst Officers who had served only three years in other corps enjoyed their full pays Mr. BENSON hoped that some step would be taken to amend their condition. Mr. WARD stated 'hat the COrps of Artillery Drivers had increased during the late wars to 7000 men, who were divided into twelve troops, with twelve Captains and other Officers. They had deserved well of their country, and distinguished themselves on every occasion as far as the nature of their service allowed. It was not, therefore, for any fault of theirs, that they were reduced, but they had experienced the same fate as the'Army. Eight troops had been reduced,out of the we've, and put on half-pay. When, after the campaign of 1815, a.-fresh organization of the remaining four troops had taken place, as tLey were still re tained, full pay was given to the Officers who re tired, and from that arrangement there had been no deviation. If Captain Humphreys was in thOse four troops, and did not- receive his full pay, then he was not in the situation in which it was in tended he should be placed, and he might not only claim his full pay, but its arreai-s. But if he belonged to the eight troops which had been re duced, then he was ,not entitled to more than his half-pay. Mr. BENNET contended that the case was en tirely anomalous. I'‘vas hard for a person who had served ttsenty-two years to retire with Gs.Bd. per da3', whilst individuals in more favoured corps enjoyed their full pay. He then instanced an Irish corps, which had been redneed at the Union, and ' the officers of which had their tull.pay. Mr. WARD stated, that previous to the Union there had been two battalions of .Irish Artillery, one of which having been reduced before that event, hat; been put,. as usual, ott - half-pay. The other still existed at the Union, ar.d an option had been given to its officers, but not to those or the former, either to enter into the service of Great Britain, or to retire on half-pay. The other •had remained on the footing of halt-pay on which it had been placed ; and no complaints wet e heard. Now, if the eight troopS of artillery drivers that ' had been reduced Were entitled - to their 101 pay, so Was the Irish battalion, which mast then enter into possession not merely of 3000/. a year, but of th e arrears, which for seventeen years would amount to 51,0001. Mr. BENSON called upon, the charity of the House to consider the situation of men ulto had entered the service with 'a promise that on leav ing it they would have their full pay. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Said, that if a promise had been pledged, it would be re- : deemed; but if the case merely stood onte me tits of the individuals, he had no doubt that tue Noble Lord at the head of that department would.j pay them every attention, consistent with the in. terest of other services. lie suggested the pro priety of suffering the present vote to proceed, and of bringing the subject before the con ,deeix lion of the House at a future opportunity. Mr. WARD stated, that it was impossible a pro mise of full pay should have been made, except to the officers of the tour troops which had been re tained. After some observations from Mr. Fonsgs and Lord Ccic naktie, the conversation dropped, the Resolution was agreed to, and the following sums voted:— For Land Ordnance Servke, not provided for ,C. s. d• in 1817 • For the Ordnance Department in Ireland, for 1818 115,G09 18 9 For Allowances fur Superannuated and Retired Officers in Great Britain. superannuated Men, and the Widows 1 - .nd Children of those de ceased, fur 1816 232,408 2 0 For ditto in Ireland 11,460 14 3 or Superannuated and flail•pay Officers in Great Britain, not provided for in 1817 10,394 7 10 For Compensations and Allowances to Persons lately belonging to the Ordnance Depart 'tient, and holding other Civil Offices.... For similar Compensations and ARowances in Ircdsnd 4 .,16 4. 6 3 For repairing the damages done to "the Sea wall Sat Portsmouth & flaslar by violent storms 4,000 0 o The House then teSumed, and the deport was ordered to be received-on Monday. INK RESTRICTIONS. ..:. 29,727 18 8 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHECWER brOught in the Bill to continue the Restrictions on Bank Cash Payments'. Sir C. MoNct asked,,whether in the l ,800,000 t. which he now understood was the only surplus of the Consolidated Fund, the 650,0001. received at the Bank flout different Saving Ranks were included ? . • The CHANCELLOR of the EXt t4F.GIVER said, that they were not included in the 1,500,000/. alluded to, for they were nal considered applicable to the reduction of the National Debt, bat as a *mere deposit. The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered for a second reading on Friday next. GRENFELL inquired - wheilter the Right Hon. Gentleman had it in contemplation to ad mit the Public to the immense profits which the Bank made by the continuation of the restrictive system ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER di:! not think that it would be for the honour of that House, or that of the country, to make them participate in the profits produced by the restrictions. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then brought in the Bill to regulate the Issues of Country Bank Notes. Sir 3. NewpoaT-asked, whether the stamp whirls this Bill rendered necessary would pay any addi tional duty ? If so, private Bankers would not use it ; and the effect of the measure would be to throw the whole circulation of th►e country into the hands of the Bank of England, and thus nieut its already enormous influence. Tile CHANCELLOR of the ExCIiEOVER was un derstood to say, that the Stamp ditty would be the same as that which now existed o - and that it would perhaps be practicable to cuter into a ',im position for the duty, whicl► .would enable private Bankers to re-issue their notes as often as they pleased. Sir J. NEwroaT, alluding to what had fallen from the Right lion.Genileman the day befoie,re specting the total disappearance of the 2,500,000/. issued in coin by the Bank, wished to inform trim that it had not been remitted,.as he seemed to imagine, to foreign countries. The fact was, that at that period some Bankers, and he spoke with certainty of one with whom he was con nected by blood, having placed full confidence la the assurance given by the Right Hon. Gentle- , tnan respecting the resumption of cash -payments.. had made preparations for that purpose. With that end in view, ►he Banker whom he had men tioned had drawn a large stun from the Bank 'of Ireland, which' had been paid in coin, and Was deposited for the time when cash-payments should be resumed. The .CitANCELLOII of the EXCHEQUER should be glad to find that the - instances of - such prepara tions had not been rare, and would make some inquiry into the subject before the Bill had passed through the llouse. Atter a few words from Mr. Grenfell, General Thornton, and Mr. Alderman Atkins, the. Bill was read, and ordered for a second reading OM Monday se'onight, and to be printed. SURGERY REGULATION BILL. COURTENEY, on moving the second reading of this Bill, repeated its nature, and the objects of the different clauses it contained, for compelling all persons in future, who intend to practise as Surgeons, obtaining testimonials of their ability from the College of Surgeons of London. Sir C. MONCK objected to the Bill, on the ground that the payment required for the testimonials would induce their being granted on insufficient grounds. He saw no rea son why the Corporation of Surgeons of -London should be so tender about. the whole practice of the country. It had been said that the examinations at Surgeons' Hall were made in a base and slovenly manner, atidlt might be so; 'hut theme had been no particular ease shewn for the. necessity of this measure, or if there were, the 'Honourable Gentleman seeu►- ed to have begun at the wrong end. It appeared that the College of Surgeons of Edinburgh had particular regulations as to fees. Some years ago they amounted to thirty pounds, for their concurrence for a person to practise; but by their own confession they had altered those fees to SO/. They, 'however, only granted this testimonial after, a proper exanii- ' nation ; so that every one contributed to the character of the College whose testimony he bore. But this Bill, by making the fees to the London College an object of interest, would niche them • less 111;ely to take proper care in their examina tions. On the whole, he argued that the Bill was for the benefit of those who agitated it more than for that of the pub lic, and he concluded with moving,as an amendment, t hatin stead of now, the Bill be read a second time this day six moist hs. Mr. W. DUNDAS, in allusion to the fees of the Scotch COl lege, stated, that if a per,on chose to become a licentiate, he was only required to pay b/., but if he wished to become a Member of the Corporation he must pay the 2301. Captain WALDEGILAVE sairba f 4.• words, which seemed to be in favour of the 8111. He conucumCd the ignorance of persons acting as Surgeons in some parts of the country, who, from prejudice, refused to perform vaccination, in consequence of which, at one. time, the small pox spread tlkrough that quarter, , and affected 800 people. Mr. PE stronglyoppo3ed the Bill. It began by stating, that " whereas the health, and freqlient ly the lives,or his Ma jesty's subjects were injured and destroyed by the ignorance of persons pi actising surgery." But I i) evi4nee w otle ed of the truth of this assertion, which evidence ought to have becit produced before a Committee of that House. It was not cause the College of . Surgeons of Dublin objected to this Bill that he objected to it. His objection went to the prityrille of it, as he did not see any necessity for it. He feared:the interest of the t:olleei would make t•hein enter into a competition for granting a great number of testimonials. 'He had never heard any complaint of the want of.• amongst thus, who practised in Ireland, where a positive 'apprenticeship was necessary before a diploma -could be obtained. After a few words from Newport and Mr. Boswell